Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sbir Sttr Match topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee revives SBIR/STTR matching grant law, adds phase‑0 reimbursement and sends equity amendments to full council
Summary
The Economic Development Committee unanimously approved Bill 22‑26 to repeal the sunset on the county SBIR/STTR matching grant program and codified a $5,000 phase‑0 reimbursement while expanding the phase‑0 industry eligibility; several equity and reporting amendments were introduced but deferred for further legal and implementation review and will be brought to full council.
The committee took up Bill 22‑26, a county executive‑introduced measure to remove the sunset that had expired on the SBIR/STTR matching grant program. Jim (council staff) explained that although funds have been appropriated and used, the statutory language had lapsed and reviving the statute restores legal certainty for applicants who rely on a standing program.
Council staff and the executive’s office proposed a clarifying amendment to change the eligibility trigger language so federal SBIR/STTR awards received in the 12 months preceding a matching grant application remain eligible, closing a narrow timing loophole. A second staff amendment codified a $5,000 phase‑0 reimbursement (previously in county regulations) intended to defray pre‑award application costs; the phase‑0 eligibility was expanded to any industry at the phase‑0 level while phases 1 and 2 remained limited to the enumerated sectors.
Council member Sells introduced a package of four amendments designed to strengthen transparency and equity: expanded demographic reporting on awardees and applicants, workforce pathway commitments for awardees, supplier partnership requirements to increase county procurement opportunities for minority‑owned and small businesses, and measuring long‑term outcomes such as jobs, wages and retention. Chair Gonzales and executive staff raised legal and operational questions about collecting certain kinds of demographic data and the administrative burden of added reporting; the chair asked that the package receive more review and discussion at full council.
After adopting the two staff technical amendments and agreeing to carry the council member Sells amendments to full council review, the committee voted to advance Bill 22‑26 as amended; the motion passed unanimously.
